Telangana High Court
Arun Kumar Dama vs Madi Ram Reddy on 5 May, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3407 OF 2023
Dated: 05.05.2026
Between:
1.Arun Kumar Dama and another
... Petitioners-Petitioners-Defendant Nos.8 & 9
And
1. Madi Ram Reddy
... Respondent No.1 - Respondent No.1 -
Plaintiff
2. Madi Yadi Reddy and six others
... Respondent Nos.2 to 8 -
Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 - Defendant Nos.1 to 7
ORDER
1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in
I.A.No.158 of 2023 in O.S.No.54 of 2008, dated 12.09.2023.
2. Petitioners are the petitioners-defendant Nos.8 and 9, respondent
No.1 is the respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 8 are the
respondent Nos.2 to 8 – defendant Nos.1 to 7 in I.A.No.158 of 2023 in
O.S.No.54 of 2008.
2/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to
as petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9, respondent No.1 – plaintiff and
respondent Nos.2 to 8 – defendant Nos.1 to 7.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9
submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the well-
settled principle of law that a plaint is liable to be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC if the relief claimed therein cannot be granted, ought
to have considered the fact that the suit documents show that
respondent No.1 – plaintiff has no right or interest of whatsoever nature
over any of the plaint schedule properties and there is no cause of
action to bring the suit against the defendants [respondent Nos.2 to 8
and petitioners]. The property in the hands of Janga Reddy was a
separate property and respondent No.1 – plaintiff has no pre-existing
right or interest over the suit schedule property and failed to consider
that during the lifetime of Janga Reddy he alienated the suit property in
favor of the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 through registered sale
deeds in the year 1998 and 1999. Respondent No.1-plaintiff cannot
seek partition of plaint schedule properties. It is a settled position of law
that self-acquired property of a person would devolve upon his children
only as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act and that Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act would have no application. The learned Trial
Court ought to have seen that suit claim is ex-facie barred under law
3/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
and that the Court fee paid on the plaint is not proper and ought to
have considered that the registered sale deeds which have been
challenged in the suit were executed long prior to three years of
institution of the suit and the same is barred by limitation. It is not
open to the respondent No.1 – plaintiff to claim that he is in joint
possession with the defendants [respondents Nos.2 to 8 and petitioners
herein]. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that a duty is cast on
the Court to reject the plaint if the plaint fails to disclose an
ascertainable cause of action. Counsel to substantiate his contention
has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal
Kaur and others 1 and (ii) Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar and others 2.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – plaintiff submits that the
learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed in the impugned order
and rightly held that the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 have not
made out any case to reject the plaint and no interference is called for.
Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in
the cases of (i) M.Yogendra and others vs. Leelamma N. and others 3 (ii)
Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and others 4 (iii) Shyam Narayan
Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad and others 5 (iv) Aravapalli Subba Rao and
1
(2020) 14 SCC 436
2
2025 SCC online SC 877
3
(2009) 15 SCC 184
4
(2013) 9 SCC 419
5 (2018) 7 SCC 646
4/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
others vs. Anne Seetha Ratnam and another 6 (v) Guraja Gangadhara
Rao and others vs. Thotakura Sambasiva Rao and others 7 and (vi)
Sanjay Gupta vs. Sonakshi Gupta and Others 8 and prayed to dismiss
the CRP.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 has
filed synopsis in support of his contention.
7. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by the
learned Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it
require interference of this court.
8. It is stated in the plaint that respondent No.1 – plaintiff and
respondent Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.1 to 6 constitute joint Hindu
family and they are the joint owners and possessors of suit schedule
property i.e., land measuring Ac.4-06 guntas in survey No.22/E
situated at Aziznagar village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Originally the grandfather of respondent No.1- plaintiff and respondent
Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.1 to 6 namely Madi Hanmanthaiah @ Hanmi
Reddy was the owner and pattedar of land in survey No.22,
admeasuring Ac.8-13 guntas situated at Aziznagar village, Moinabad
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, after his death, his two sons namely
6 2016 (5) ALD 200
7 2025 (1) ALT 471 (AP)
8 2025 SCC Online Del 8806
5/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
Madi Janga Reddy who is the father of respondent No.1 – plaintiff and
respondent Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.1 to 6 and Madi Amba Reddy
succeeded his property as his sole legal heirs. They partitioned the said
land into two equal shares, the father of respondent No.1 – plaintiff and
respondent Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.1 to 6 got Ac.4-06 gts in Survey
No.22/E, ever since they are in joint possession and enjoyment.
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendant Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with the
father of respondent No.1 – plaintiff [Janga Reddy], without his
knowledge or consent, with malafide intention executed registered sale
deed in favor of respondent No.8 – defendant No.7 and the petitioners –
defendant Nos.8 and 9 vide document Nos.98/1998, 1852/1999 and
1853 of 1999, the sale deeds are not binding on respondent No.1 –
plaintiff and he came to know about the sale deeds on 10.12.2007. The
father of respondent No.1 – plaintiff [Janga Reddy] and respondent
Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.1 to 6 jointly possess the suit schedule
property as Hindu undivided joint family members. As such respondent
No.1 – plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property.
After the death of Janga Reddy no partition has taken place between
respondent No.1 – plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.1
to 6 and it was jointly succeeded by them and they are the joint owners.
6/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
9.1 Petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 filed I.A.No.158 of 2023 in
O.S.No.54 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint in O.S.No.54 of 2008.
9.2 Affidavit is sworn by petitioner No.1 – defendant No.8 on his behalf
and also on behalf of petitioner No.2 – defendant No.9.
9.3 It is stated in the affidavit that on the face of the plaint averments
made by respondent No.1 – plaintiff has no pre-existing right over the
suit property to claim any share in the property much less 1/8th share
and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The provision of law
under which the suit was valued and court fee paid thereon is incorrect.
The admission made by respondent No.1 – plaintiff in the plaint that the
land in survey No.22 admeasuring Ac.8-13 guntas originally belonged
to his grandfather late M.Hanumanthaiah @ Hanmi Reddy and after his
demise, his two sons Janga Reddy and Amba Reddy divided the land in
equal share and that Janga Reddy in his lifetime joined with respondent
Nos.2 to 6 – defendant Nos.1 to 5 alienated the suit property in favor of
respondent No.8 – defendant No.7 and petitioners – defendant Nos.8
and 9 through registered sale deeds document Nos.98/1998,
1852/1999 and 1853/1999 on 05.01.1998. The property in the hands
of Janga Reddy was a separate property, as such respondent No.1 –
plaintiff has no pre-existing right or interest over the same. Respondent
No.1 – plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the suit for partition and
7/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
the cause of action stated in the plaint is illusory. The suit claim is
false, frivolous and vexatious in nature.
10. Respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed counter and contended that he is
in joint possession of the suit property and thereby he paid court fee
under Section 34(2) of the AP Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and
that the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 have not made out any
case to reject the plaint.
11. The learned Trial Court after going through the pleadings has
dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9
holding that ‘whether the father of respondent No.1 – plaintiff sold the
suit property to the respondent No.8 – defendant No.7 and petitioners –
defendant Nos.8 and 9 as Kartha of Hindu Undivided Family is a mixed
question of law and fact and the sanctity of the sale deed is subject to
appreciation of evidence. Further the suit is barred by limitation is also
a mixed question of law and fact and it can only be decided after
completion of trial as the respondent No.1 – plaintiff did not specifically
sought for declaration of sale deeds as null and void and not binding on
him. Further as per Article 65 of Limitation Act, suit for partition shall
be filed within 12 years from the date when the right to sue accrued,
which is impugned in the present CRP.
8/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
12. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the following documents along
with the plaint, they are: CC of Pahani patarika for the years 1958-
1959, 1960-1961; CC of Phahani Adangal for the years 1990-1991,
2000-2001, 2005-2006; True copy of pahani adangal for the year 2006-
2007; CC of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 98/1998,
1852/1999, 1853/1999 and market value certificate issued by Sub-
Registrar.
13. On perusal of the sale deed dated 04.03.1999, vide document
No.1852/99, which goes to show that it is executed by M.Janga Reddy
and respondents Nos.2 to 6 – defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the
petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9. The schedule of the property is to
an extent of Ac.1-27.5 guntas in survey No.22/à°…. It is mentioned in the
sale deed that the vendors therein have already sold an extent of Ac.0-
20 guntas of land to respondent No.8-defendant No.7 through sale deed
bearing document No.95/98. The sale deed further goes to show that
vendor No.1 is the actual owner of agricultural land bearing survey
No.22/à°… total measuring Ac.4-07 guntas situated at Aziz Nagar village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and who possess patta in his
name and vendor Nos.2 to 6 [respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendant Nos.1
to 5], are the sons of vendor No.1 they are also added to avoid further
litigations. Same extent of land is also executed by them in favor of the
petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 on 04.03.1999, vide document
9/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
No.1853/99 and the recitals are also one and the same. Respondent
No.1-plaintiff is not a party to the aforesaid sale deeds.
14.1 In Arshnoor Singh1, Supreme Court observed at paragraph
Nos.7.5 and 7.6, which reads as under:
“After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, this position
has undergone a change. Post 1956, if a person inherits a self-
acquired property from his paternal ancestors, the said property
becomes his self-acquired property, and does not remain
coparcenary property. But if succession opened under the old Hindu
law i.e. prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, the parties would be governed by Mitakshara law. The
property inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal male ancestor
shall be coparcenary property in his hands vis-Ã -vis his male
descendants up to three degrees below him. The nature of property
will remain as coparcenary property even after the commencement of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.”
14.2 In Angadi Chandranna2, Supreme Court has laid down the
following principles:
(i) Once a joint family property is legally partitioned and divided,
it ceases to be joint family property. The shares allotted to
each party becomes their self-acquired property.
(ii) Each co-parcener gains absolute title over their allotted share
and is free to sell, lease, gift or bequeath it without needing
consent from the other family.
15.1 In M.Yogendra3, Supreme Court has laid down the following
principles:
(i) When a Hindu male dies intestate after the commencement of
1956 Act, his property devolves according to Section 8, and
10/15BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023not Section 6, especially if he held the property as a sole
coparcener after a prior partition.
(ii) Property allotted to sole coparcener during a partition
becomes a separate property. It only revives as coparcener
property if a son is born to him thereafter.
(iii) Property inherited by a son from his father under Section 8 is
held in his individual capacity, and does not automatically
become joint family property for his own branch.
15.2 In Rohit Chauhan4, Supreme Court laid down the following
principles:
(i) When ancestral property is divided in a partition and falls into
the hands of a single person, it is treated as their separate or
self-acquired property.
(ii) The property loses its separate character the moment a son is
born to that person.
(iii) Upon the birth of the child, the property revives as
coparcenary property, and the child immediately acquires an
undivided interest in it by birth.
(iv) Once a child is born and the coparcenary is revived, the father
can no longer dispose of the property as his own. He can only
sell or transfer the property in the capacity of a kartha, and
only for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family estate.
Transfer made without legal necessity after the child’s birth is
considered illegal, null and void.
15.3 In Shyam Narayan Prasad5, Supreme Court laid down the
following principles:
(i) Property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, paternal
grandfather or paternal great-grandfather is ancestral
property.
(ii) When such ancestral property is partitioned among family
members, the share received by a particular coparcener
remains ancestral property in his hands as far as his own ….
issue.
11/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
(iii) The descendants, sons and grandsons are entitled to the
property by survivorship. They have a legal right to claim a
share in that specific property.
15.4 In Aravapalli Subbarao6, High Court of Judicature, Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, has laid down the principles, which
reads as under:
(i) Property falling to a father’s share during partition is treated
as a separate or self acquired property, this remains true as
long as he does not have a son or daughter born to him after
the date of that partition. During this period the father has
the absolute right to deal with or alienate the property as he
wishes.
(ii) If a male or female child is born to the father after partition,
the child acquires a right by birth in the property and the
property immediately loses its separate character and
becomes ancestral – coparcenary property in the hands of the
father.
15.5 In Guraja Gangadhara Rao7, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi laid down the following principles regarding ancestral
property:
i) Property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, paternal
grandfather or paternal great-grandfather is considered as
ancestral property.
ii) Sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquire an undivided
interest and right in such property from the moment of their
birth.
iii) The father as a coparcener does not have the right to alienate
the entire ancestral property without the consent of other
coparceners, like his sons.
15.6 In Sanjay Gupta8, High Court of Delhi, held as under:
12/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
(i) Court must perform a meaningful, but not hypertechnical reading of
the plaint as a whole to determine if cause of action exists.
(ii) The Court must only look at the averments in the plaint. The
defendant’s arguments or evidence cannot be considered.
(iii) If a case involves factual disputes, example, whether an HUF existed
or if properties where ancestral, these are tribal issues that require a
full trial and evidence.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9
submits that respondent No.1 – plaintiff did not mention in the plaint
the date of partition and his date of birth. It is not known whether the
partition had taken place prior to the birth of respondent No.1-plaintiff
or after his birth.
17.1 Plaint cannot be rejected over deficiency in valuation of Court
fees. See: M/s.MARG Limited Vs. Sushil Lalwani and Others 9.
17.2 It is well settled that limitation is a mixed question of law and
fact and unless the same is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot
form a ground under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for non-suiting a
plaintiff. See: Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole and others Vs. Rohit
Enterprises & Others 10.
18. On meaningful reading of the plaint, it is stated that the property
is in joint possession and enjoyment and the father of the respondent
No.1 – plaintiff by name Madi Janga Reddy. M.Janga Reddy has
9
2026 INSC 402
10
Laws (SC) – 2025 – 11 – 128
13/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
performed his marriage with one Smt.Pochamma D/o. S.Chandra
Reddy, R/o. Murthujaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District and he is residing at his in-law’s house. The sale made by
M.Janga Reddy with that of respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendant Nos.1 to
5 is on 04.03.1999. These are the matters which are to be decided
during the course of trial.
19. As stated supra, respondent No.1 – plaintiff is not a party to
registered sale deed dated 04.03.1999 which is in favor of the
petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9. The learned Trial Court has rightly
held that it is a matter of trial that once a property is partitioned
whether it becomes the self acquired property in the hands of the share
holder or it was in joint possession and enjoyment of respondent No.1 –
plaintiff with that of respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendant No.1 to 5. The
plaint averments goes to show that after the death of Hanmi Reddy
Ac.8-13 guntas was divided in between M.Janga Reddy [father of
respondent No.1 – plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 6 – defendant No.1
to 5] and M.Amba Reddy and they have equally partitioned the land, on
which the father of respondent No.1 – plaintiff got Ac.4-06 guntas in
survey No. 22/E.
20. The decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioners –
defendant Nos. 8 and 9 in paragraph Nos. 14.1 and 14.2 are
14/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of
those cases would not apply.
21. The decision cited by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 –
plaintiff in paragraph Nos.15.1 to 15.6 are applicable to the case on
hand.
22. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that whether the father of
respondent No.1-plaintiff sold the suit property to the respondent No.8
– defendant No.7 and petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 as Kartha of
Hindu Undivided Family is a mixed question of law and fact and the
sanctity of the said sale deeds is subject to the appreciation of evidence
adduced by both the parties and also gave justifiable reasons that the
point of limitation is also a mixed question of law, which has to be
decided after full fledged trial.
23. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on
the face of record or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner
(See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan 11).
24. This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has properly
appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the application
11
2025 SCC OnLine SC 985
15/15
BRMR,J
CRP.No.3407 of 2023
filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 to reject the plaint. The
learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while dismissing the
said application and this Court is of the view that there is no perversity
or illegality in the orders passed by the learned Trial Court. There are
no merits in the CRP and the same is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
25. CRP.No.3407 of 2023 is dismissed without costs.
Interim orders, miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
05.05.2026
Dua
[ad_1]
Source link
